Supreme Court Says Farmers May Sue in State Courts

The United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling Wednesday that is important to farmers who use pesticides. Reversing the lower district court in Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, the Court ruled that farmers whose crops are damaged by federally approved pesticides or herbicides may seek damages against the manufacturer.

The case began five years ago when Texas peanut farmers applied a new herbicide called “Strongarm” that was manufactured by the chemical giant Dow Chemical Company. When the herbicide killed the weeds and the crops of peanuts, the farmers threatened Dow with a lawsuit. When negotiations broke down, Dow AgroSciences, the manufacturing unit of Dow Chemical, went into federal court seeking a ruling that the lawsuit was pre-empted by the federal law, the Federal Incecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA.
Although the federal government has long taken the position that FIFRA did not pre-empt damage suits in state courts, the Bush administration reversed that position and pressed the Supreme Court to reject the appeal. But Justice Stevens, writing the majority opinion, said that the administration’s argument “is particularly dubious given that just five years ago the United States advocated the interpretation that we adopt today.”

Arthur H. Bryant, executive director for Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, a public-interest law firm that represents consumers, said that this was “an important and striking development” in light of the general trend in legislatures and courts toward curbing access to the tort system, according to an article in The New York Times.

What this means is that while the Bush administration seems to be bowing to pressure from the chemical lobbyists, the Supreme Court seems to be acting independently once again. Of course, the organic farmers would point out that growing peanuts without potent chemicals and utilizing crop rotation might be the way to go.